On Thu, 11 Jan 1996, Erik van Blokland wrote:
> >i am so pleased that english had the good sense not to use diacrits
> >(unless you consider the dot on i and j to be diacrits).
> >malcolm clark tel: (+44) 01203 523365
> But in english you have 4 or 5 alternative ways to put any sound in the
> spoken language into writing instead. So getting rid of one complexity just
> introduces another.
(a)languages, and their pronounciation, evolve. it is futile
to try to enforce a fixed sound.
(b)'accents' (in the sense of spoken tongue) can ensure
that someone from (say) friesland has great difficulty in
understanding someone from (say) flanders (i mean the
bit of the netherlands south of the delta: i forget it's
province name). the same is true in heavily diacrit-ed
language areas like spain or france. it seems difficult to
argue that the presence of the accents ensures uniformity
of the sounds.
(apologies to those who realise this has nothing to do with
the subject matter of this list, and those who have to pay for
their log on time.)
malcolm clark tel: (+44) 01203 523365
computing services fax: (+44) 01203 523267
university of warwick url: http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~cudax/egotrip.html
coventry, cv4 7al, uk email: [log in to unmask]
"none but ourselves can free our minds" r.marley